Tiananmen is the reason China won't have an easy time becoming democratic. The point of Tiananmen wasn't 'if it succeeded it would have caused China to colapse.' I agree that the protestors demands should not have been met. The problem was the way it was handled. It was a peaceful protest met with military assault and the death and imprisonment of many innocent people who just wanted a better system. It showed the Chinese people that resistence would be met with extreme prejudice. Even today, very few people here speak out about the government. No one would dare form another political party. Had it been solved peacefully without giving into demands, a budding democracy could form. The idea of peaceful protests could be used as an outlet for people to express concerns. Now they are just scary. The only protests here now are government sponsered anti-japanese protests and the violent protests of the minorities and poor who have been trodden on in China rise to economic power.
I agree with you for the most part. It was handled extremely poorly. On the other hand, without Tiananmen, the overthrow of the "communist" governments in Eastern Europe would not have happened so soon, or at all.
The massacre also demonstrated how far the current leadership would go to hold onto power. Democracy would mean relinquishing some of that power. This will not happen easily. Look at Hong Kong, which was supposed to be a starting point for democracy in China. Instead China has done everything it could without violating the passover agreement to maintain strict control of the islands.
But they aren't having it all their own way.
You must also look at the history of China. There has never been a major democracy movement. The country has been ruled by one force for thousands of years.
True as far as I know.
The force has only changed through violence. But a singular force has always remained. Even at the height of the empire, the country was still ruled by one party. To think that improving the quality of life through the economy will lead to a more democratic system in China is a bit naive.
This is where I disagree. I guess this is where my Marxist leanings show themselves. Politics is largely, for me, a superstructure over the existing economic base. Change that base and politics will change, perhaps not immediately, but eventually.
The creation China of a western style bourgeoisie will, in my humble opinion, force change. Of course it will be a peculiarly Chinese form of change, and it will probably appear strange to us on the outside, but it will happen nonetheless. Politics is the shadow cast on society by its economic form of organization.
The problem (or not) with the bourgeoisie is that they get it into their heads that their silly and largely self-serving beliefs should gain public airing and be listened to. And they get very petulant if ignored (the working people don't; they are used to being ignored). Unlike the Tiananmen students (who very nearly succeeded), they have significant economic clout behind them and occupy positions of prominence.
Western police have no problems beating up on students and working class malcontents. but they will hardly ever go against the bourgeosie. In fact I can't think of a single instance in which they have.
The Chinese communist party, or at least some parts of it, probably know this already. I imagine that many have already positioned themselves to benefit from it, and it is that greed which will destroy the party as we know it.
The other big problem is their futile attempt to control information technology. But we all know that power tends to co-opt and absolute power co-opts absolutely. Nevertheless I don't envy them the task. If the party manages the transition with little or no bloodshed or economic disaster, then there will be quite a few gold stars to be put down in the giant ledger of good deeds, even though hardly anyone will notice.
So I guess I am just more of an optimist than most people.
Comment